1,063 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

1 day ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Felicity Buchan: We ne... · 0 replies · +1 points

In many countries renting is the norm.

Any problems with bad landlords are not reasons renting is inherently bad, they are a separate issue.

Moving from one rental to another is not the end of the world - if your landlord decides to sell, you find somewhere else nearby (home owners need to move home too and renters can do it much more flexibly to take up work in another area, for example).

2 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Kieran Cooke: Yes, sch... · 0 replies · +1 points

The rise in virtual learning is welcome.

However, I certainly don't agree with the author's assertion that the teaching profession has come out of this period smelling of roses. Like it or not, their union acts in their name and its antics have done them no favours whatsoever.

If they don't like what the union does in their name then they need to make the effort to actually reform that union and reverse the trend of militant lefties taking it over in perpetuity.

2 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Darren Grimes: Johnson... · 0 replies · +1 points

Wow. Trolls galore above - apart from a couple of sensible posts noting the same.

Virtual education, great stuff. I've been championing it here for some time. The teaching unions may be militantly setting about their own demise.

Virtual education is to this dispute what stockpiles of coal were in the miners' dispute. With coal piled up high, we didn't need anyone to do much mining, so the government could watch as the NUM ran itself into the ground with strike pay and tore itself apart via internal conflict with those who wanted to end the strike.

Used properly, virtual education means that we can find ways that we don't need people to do much teaching. Deja vu.

2 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Felicity Buchan: We ne... · 2 replies · +1 points

More of this guff? It went from safety to "affordable" rather rapidly.

As has been stated many times in response to the many low quality articles here on the same rather tiresome subject:

1. In reality, what we need is fewer people.
2. There's actually nothing wrong with renting!

On point 1, with limited land on this small island, supply is limited. Only by dealing with demand could we address this.

Point 2, however, is about the fact that we don't necessarily need to do anything at all.

The only argument advanced for this so far is that it makes the Conservative Party more electable. That's not actually a very good reason.

2 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Allowing illegal migra... · 0 replies · +1 points

Not only that, but the suggestion that people drown because a dinghy overturns shows that he knows nothing about these matters. Just another bleeding heart making it up as he goes along.

2 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Allowing illegal migra... · 1 reply · +1 points

I did mention that there are other islands. And the numbers would soon fall, as evidenced by the Australian experience.

2 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Allowing illegal migra... · 3 replies · +1 points

I agree with the author. The Australia solution has always seemed right to me and is being proved to be so with the passage of time.

I'm in favour of setting up refugee processing centres on uninhabited UK islands. Samson in the Scilly Isles is the largest uninhabited island in the UK and is relatively close to the places people disembark as a result of trafficking.

There are others in the UK and one or more could be chosen according to various criteria.

This deals with the issue of people arriving and avoiding return by refusing to say where they came from, or the route to arrive in the UK since they will simply stay there until they come clean.

Under no circumstances should any such people be allowed to remain in the UK. Genuine refugees will have walked through other safe countries, which they should not do, and they will have chosen not to go through the proper channels in the first place. Economic migrants have no right to be here anyway.

2 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Matt Kilcoyne: Anti-de... · 0 replies · +1 points


And just to add - your contributions to this thread have been excellent and right on the money. You saved me a lot of typing.

4 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alexandra Marsanu: Rat... · 0 replies · +1 points

Well, I'm sure I don't have to point out to you that a poll of six people, all related, is not the greatest statistical sample. However, I willingly accept that across the population there are many different takes on remote working (and I see this in my own firm).

The attitudes seem to vary according to various factors such as the suitability of the home as a place of work. Singles and young adults seem to want to socialise at work - not something that the company wants to encourage, we're not a dating club (but I tend to go for the more experienced employee even long before ageism was a thing, I tapped into the resource of the older worker’s skills, experience, work ethic and I have never had cause for regret). Some married people with kids are not keen to be working from home, particularly during school holidays while others see it differently as long as they can find an undisturbed location to do their work.

One chap I interviewed springs to mind - he was working for a management consultancy at the time and when asked about working from home, he candidly admitted that the reason he worked for his current employer was that he stayed away all week at company expense and left his wife to deal with the kids. He didn't get the job.

Although pensions is more assurance than insurance, I also understand that you're quite right re FRS17 which I’m led to believe was better on disclosure but lacking on methodology (the old SSAP24 approach was better and only needed to get the disclosure requirements right).

However, Brown's intervention, removing tax credits, was a problem in that he seemed to look only at current fund values in the “good times” (which he saw as more than needed to meet the commitments) and showed little understanding of the need to build up an (apparent) surplus to deal with the lean years when asset prices are depressed. I’m no actuary but I have discussed this with various financial people, since I would like to create a defined benefit scheme but the advice is always “don’t do it”, however I try to probe the ins and outs to make an informed decision rather than relying on someone else’s say-so. That said, the problems are wider than just those above, such as the relatively new responsibilities of scheme trustees and associated heavy penalties for transgression. But anyway, I digress again, discussion with your good self is always interesting.

4 days ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alexandra Marsanu: Rat... · 0 replies · +1 points

"It's a common and polite approach to suggest someone's argument is 'mistaken'."

Clearly, we walk in very different circles. Much of what has become "common" is far from polite.

I was only talking about what would happen once the State is out of the way, which is clearly only until the lockdown ends. No-one is suggesting that it will be compulsory to have remote working after that.